![]() Here, in limiting the defendants' cross-examination of Echavarria, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. While a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, that right is not absolute the trial court has discretion in determining the scope of cross-examination. Out of concern that such questioning would divert the jury's attention away from the focus of the case, the trial court stopped further inquiry into the calculation of Echavarria's sentence because it was more prejudicial than probative. ![]() They sought to establish that Echavarria misled the probation officer responsible for compiling his presentence report by failing to mention his prior convictions. In all, according to the government, Hanserd and the people that worked for him distributed approximately a kilogram of cocaine per day over at least a two-year period.ĭefendants also assert that they were restricted in their exploration of Echavarria's prior criminal history in that they possessed information that Echavarria had a 1985 California conviction for public intoxication and destruction of personal property that was not included in the calculation of his sentence. Indeed, on June 12, 1990, Medina was arrested after attempting to sell three kilograms of cocaine to California law enforcement officers and Paris Pettiford, who by then had become a government informant. Essentially, however, this was a cocaine, not a heroin, distribution network. ![]() One of the deliveries of heroin was transported by Echavarria in a red Masarati. Also in 1988, Echavarria, acting at the behest of Medina, twice delivered a half kilogram of heroin to Hanserd. Hanserd transported the cocaine from California to Detroit, and later sold 31 of the 47 kilograms of cocaine to Wilson. In March of 1988, Hanserd purchased an additional 47 kilograms of cocaine from Medina and paid him $647,000. Once there, the cocaine was turned over to Wilson. Later, in January 1988, Hanserd purchased a multi-kilo quantity of cocaine from Medina and King, and Hanserd, Echavarria, Medina, and another person shipped it from California back to Detroit. We affirm the convictions, but remand for resentencing of defendants King and Wilson. ![]() Finally, all defendants challenge the sentences imposed by the trial judge. King also challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for severance, and Medina argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits his prosecution for conspiracy and for use of a communication facility to facilitate a drug trafficking offense because of an earlier federal conviction. King and Medina further contend that they were improperly tried on the distribution counts because the trial court lacked venue. The defendants assert that their right to a fair trial was denied by decisions of the trial court which resulted in (1) restrictions on access to witnesses as well as restrictions on the cross-examination of witnesses, (2) denial of a continuance, (3) the government's refusal to turn over Jencks Act material, (4) introduction of certain evidence, and (5) failure to immunize potential defense witnesses. ![]() Defendants, Anthony Medina, Neville King, and Nathaniel Wilson, appeal their jury convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of cocaine, unlawful use of a communication facility, and use of a firearm to facilitate drug trafficking. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |